Mrebo

TV’s Frink said:

Mrebo said:

TV’s Frink said:

Warbler said:

ChainsawAsh said:

Warbler said:

TV’s Frink said:

Warbler said:

TV’s Frink said:

I don’t quite understand why a college-aged male would feel the need to go to an all-male college though.

I don’t quite understand why a college-aged female would feel the need to go to an all-female college though.

Safety?

Try to imagine if you had been raped in high school. Just for starters.

So if I was a woman and was raped by a black student in highschool, would I be justified in wanting to go to a whites only school?

I honestly don’t know how to respond to this.

Not wanting to go to a school with the same gender that raped me is the same as not wanting to go to a school with the same race that raped me?

How does a race rape someone?

How does a gender?

Come on man.

It’s a fair question.

It’s not rational to blame all men for the action of one. Nor would it be rational to blame all black men. You might have more sympathy for the one impulse over the other, but let’s be honest about it.

TV’s Frink said:

Warbler said:

ChainsawAsh said:

Warbler said:

TV’s Frink said:

Warbler said:

TV’s Frink said:

I don’t quite understand why a college-aged male would feel the need to go to an all-male college though.

I don’t quite understand why a college-aged female would feel the need to go to an all-female college though.

Safety?

Try to imagine if you had been raped in high school. Just for starters.

So if I was a woman and was raped by a black student in highschool, would I be justified in wanting to go to a whites only school?

I honestly don’t know how to respond to this.

Not wanting to go to a school with the same gender that raped me is the same as not wanting to go to a school with the same race that raped me?

How does a race rape someone?

How does a gender?

chyron8472 said:

https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/t9-guidelines-ss.html
Guidelines regarding Single Sex Classes and Schools

https://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/education-department-clarifies-requirements-offering-single-sex-classes
Education Department Clarifies Requirements for Offering Single-Sex Classes

To offer single-sex classes or extracurricular activities, schools must:

Identify an important objective that they seek to achieve by offering a single-sex class (such as improving academic achievement);
Demonstrate that the single-sex nature of the class is substantially related to achieving that objective;
Ensure that enrollment in the single-sex class is completely voluntary (through an opt-in, rather than an opt-out, process);
Offer a substantially equal coed class in the same subject;
Offer single-sex classes evenhandedly to male and female students;
Conduct periodic evaluations at least every two years to ensure that the classes continue to comply with Title IX;
Avoid relying on gender stereotypes;
Provide equitable access to single-sex classes to students with disabilities and English language learners and,
Avoid discriminating against faculty members based on gender when assigning educators to single-sex classrooms.

I didn’t spend the last couple hours reading about Title IX just to read about it on a Star Wars site too.

ChainsawAsh said:

moviefreakedmind said:

ChainsawAsh said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Why are people taking out 100,000 dollars in debt to go to this school?

Why do people take on incredible amounts of debt to go to any school?

Genuinely asking, I have no idea why I did it either.

It was hammered into me that it’d be the only way I could get a job and not live a shit life. To be fair, I do live moderately well, but that’s just because I live cheap and don’t have a family.

Yep, basically this for me too.

Mhm.

On the guys/girls school thing, Warb, gender/sex has been recognized as a valid basis for some distinctions. And a private entity has leeway to discriminate. As gender/sex continues to be deconstructed/reformulated it will be seen as more unacceptable to discriminate.

DominicCobb said:

I guess the question is why it’s still a women only school.

How dare you, sir!

I’m appalled by the hate engendered (😉) by Yahoo in its lede:

Mount Holyoke, a women’s college…

Tsk tsk!

If it is indeed a “women’s” college then maybe not admitting “men” would solve the “problem.” If you “know” what I mean.

Mine looks fine on phone and computer except if I zoom way in I see it is off a little. My sampling method was crude. Does my color not match or change from screen to screen?

I like that 75,000 people just up and decided that heroin didn’t taste as good once it was legal 😉

#1 is huge and compounded with the caveat in your asterisk could be even bigger. We can’t predict how behaviors and supplies would adapt. There would still be an illegal drug trade across the border. Untaxed and unregulated is cheaper. That some problems may be lessened isn’t terribly compelling.

I would challenge #4. I see no reason not to treat it like a public health concern now, when mere use could be used to compel rehab. That would be much smarter than sending someone to prison in many cases. Treating something as a public health concern doesn’t mean there is a great rate of voluntary treatment.

moviefreakedmind said:

Mrebo said:

ChainsawAsh said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Mrebo said:

ChainsawAsh said:

Mrebo said:

if hard drugs are legal, do you think that should or should not be a basis for deciding on child custody between divorced parents?

Of course it should.

Should evidence of hard drug use justify social services going into a home to at least temporarily take away children?

Of course it should.

Basically, are you going to pretend that hard drug use by parents doesn’t pose an inherent threat to children?

Of course it does.

You know what else does? Alcoholism.

I think hard drug use poses a far greater threat to children. If I see a parent buying a bottle of hard liquor versus buying meth, I’m going to have a very different view of that, as it seems you would also. If hard drugs have a lessened stigma and are more readily available, more people are going to use. Parents addicted to hard drugs may let their children be exploited in addition to neglecting them. For this increased negative possibility, the benefit is what? Greater freedom for people to mess their lives up as drug addicts?

This strikes a nerve with me. You chose meth because it’s the obvious worst example, but the amount of children abused by drunken parents is staggering. All of the crap you listed is common in the homes of children living with parents that are severe alcoholics. For you to downplay it sickens me.

EDIT: Basically, I’m tired of this hypocrisy. Alcohol ruins more lives than hard drugs do. If you or anyone else are going to pretend to care about drug-users and the children (somebody think of the children!) then you have to be in favor of criminalizing alcohol too. If you’re not, then you’re a hypocrite.

+1

-2

I don’t buy the argument that if alcohol is legal then meth should be too because both can hurt children. I’m certainly not the one downplaying harm, righteous mfm.

I’m not righteous. It just hits close to home for me because it was a family issue for me.

Then I won’t pick on you for being on a high horse.

There is no hypocrisy in seeing a difference between hard drugs and alcohol, I’m just not a crazed absolutist. It’s true that addictions of any kind can ruin families and hurt children. You want meth legal and that’s why I used it as an example. You don’t want to draw a line even at the worst drug one might think of. A drug that, unlike alcohol, is addicting to anyone who uses it. Making judgments about where to draw lines is not hypocrisy, it’s the application of sense.

Well, obviously everything will be heavily regulated, much like cigarettes and alcohol are. That means sellers can’t advertise, or sell to anyone under 21 etc. etc.

I don’t see value in legalizing such harmful substances. Even when people only hurt themselves there is a social cost.

Even for pot there are social and personal costs. But I think you agree its effects and harms are much lower than other drugs. I don’t see the sense in jailing someone for mere use of it. Again, this is a value judgment and in no way hypocritical.

Possessed said:

Plus i don’t see how children of drugs would be any different if legal than it already is.

The idea that everything stands still but drugs are legal isn’t how it works. Money is still to be made, customer base grown. If you’re somebody dealing in inherently addictive substances, you’re going to push your product. No possibility of jail is good for business.

ChainsawAsh said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Mrebo said:

ChainsawAsh said:

Mrebo said:

if hard drugs are legal, do you think that should or should not be a basis for deciding on child custody between divorced parents?

Of course it should.

Should evidence of hard drug use justify social services going into a home to at least temporarily take away children?

Of course it should.

Basically, are you going to pretend that hard drug use by parents doesn’t pose an inherent threat to children?

Of course it does.

You know what else does? Alcoholism.

I think hard drug use poses a far greater threat to children. If I see a parent buying a bottle of hard liquor versus buying meth, I’m going to have a very different view of that, as it seems you would also. If hard drugs have a lessened stigma and are more readily available, more people are going to use. Parents addicted to hard drugs may let their children be exploited in addition to neglecting them. For this increased negative possibility, the benefit is what? Greater freedom for people to mess their lives up as drug addicts?

This strikes a nerve with me. You chose meth because it’s the obvious worst example, but the amount of children abused by drunken parents is staggering. All of the crap you listed is common in the homes of children living with parents that are severe alcoholics. For you to downplay it sickens me.

EDIT: Basically, I’m tired of this hypocrisy. Alcohol ruins more lives than hard drugs do. If you or anyone else are going to pretend to care about drug-users and the children (somebody think of the children!) then you have to be in favor of criminalizing alcohol too. If you’re not, then you’re a hypocrite.

+1

-2

I don’t buy the argument that if alcohol is legal then meth should be too because both can hurt children. I’m certainly not the one downplaying harm, righteous mfm. There is no hypocrisy in seeing a difference between hard drugs and alcohol, I’m just not a crazed absolutist. It’s true that addictions of any kind can ruin families and hurt children. You want meth legal and that’s why I used it as an example. You don’t want to draw a line even at the worst drug one might think of. A drug that, unlike alcohol, is addicting to anyone who uses it. Making judgments about where to draw lines is not hypocrisy, it’s the application of sense.

Always thinking with his misunderstanding, to paraphrase Indiana Solo.

DominicCobb said:

Mrebo said:

DominicCobb said:

Mrebo said:

I’ve been told I look like a certain member of the Avengers.

Hawkeye

Why not Thor? Captain America? Falcon? Bruce Banner? Tony? Is it because Hawkeye looks most like someone who would belong to a Star Wars fan site?

Does he?

I think he might. Then again I wouldn’t have expected JFK Wahlberg 😉

DominicCobb said:

Mrebo said:

I’ve been told I look like a certain member of the Avengers.

Hawkeye

Why not Thor? Captain America? Falcon? Bruce Banner? Tony? Is it because Hawkeye looks most like someone who would belong to a Star Wars fan site?

I don’t know who Dr. Druid is but he has style.

CHEWBAKAspelledwrong said:

No one likes a gloat. 😛

Yeah, I was just going to ignore that post…

I’ve been told I look like a certain member of the Avengers.

ChainsawAsh said:

Mrebo said:

if hard drugs are legal, do you think that should or should not be a basis for deciding on child custody between divorced parents?

Of course it should.

Should evidence of hard drug use justify social services going into a home to at least temporarily take away children?

Of course it should.

Basically, are you going to pretend that hard drug use by parents doesn’t pose an inherent threat to children?

Of course it does.

You know what else does? Alcoholism.

I think hard drug use poses a far greater threat to children. If I see a parent buying a bottle of hard liquor versus buying meth, I’m going to have a very different view of that, as it seems you would also. If hard drugs have a lessened stigma and are more readily available, more people are going to use. Parents addicted to hard drugs may let their children be exploited in addition to neglecting them. For this increased negative possibility, the benefit is what? Greater freedom for people to mess their lives up as drug addicts?

ChainsawAsh said:

Children can be taken from their parents due to neglect even if they don’t use drugs, so I don’t see the issue you think you’re raising.

You have to find neglect. There are already plenty of neglected kids that suffer with parents addicted to hard drugs. If hard drugs are legal I think the problem will be more widespread. And if hard drugs are legal, do you think that should or should not be a basis for deciding on child custody between divorced parents? Should evidence of hard drug use justify social services going into a home to at least temporarily take away children? Basically, are you going to pretend that hard drug use by parents doesn’t pose an inherent threat to children?

What about the children of parents hooked on hard drugs?

Warbler’s proposal is crazy enough that it might just work.

May help to know what drug crimes mfm would like to do away with - all of them?

Not much different than your avatar.

moviefreakedmind said:

Important step toward drug legalization.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/mcconnell-wants-hemp-removed-controlled-substance-list-n860161?cid=sm_npd_nn_fb_ma

Economic mobility here we come, thanks to a Republican!!!

yhwx said:

chyron8472 said:

TV’s Frink said:

Warbler said:

TV’s Frink said:

Warbler, if you don’t like something, report it.

that would be pointless.

Ah, but bitching about it (especially when you’re wrong) isn’t pointless. Got it.

Good luck then.

Please stop being snide.

Already got a square filled up for this week’s bingo card.

How about your dance card?